|
Does having good music theory knowledge make u better at trance? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sonic_c |
| quote: | Originally posted by RichieV
theory is sort of formative and prescriptive. So unless you really learn it and learn how it came about and then understand why people diverted from it, it can cause you to write really pedantic music. It takes years to really truly gasp it.
I think that most great producers don't really know much about theory and do alot by ear. ALot of the master composers did not study harmony and had no training for chordal succession. They formed their own framework which is essentially what theory is. But then there are those that completely ignore it and did great stuff. Think Debussy and Stravinsky. |
Debussy is my all time favorite even above trance. I get anxiety and his music sooths me lol. How did he ignore theory i just assumed he was a master? |
|
|
| RichieV |
well theory is just a system of representation for a given genre. What most people assume is theory is just a system for tonal music. Debussy, was a master but as a master, understood that conventional tonality had been taken as far as it was necessary so he experimented with different things that did not conform to traditional tonal theory.
Unfortunately unlike tonal theory, alot of genres do not prescribe to a nice set of rules. The actual idea is that there are no rules and that each movement is a colour. SOrt of relates to Schoenberg's treatise on the emancipation of tones. He basically wrote that dissonance and consonance as two separate entities do not exist. It is basically a spectrum of dissonance making every movement , interval and chord possible.
You have masters like Stravinsky that have two opposing keys playing at the same time. You have people using serial tone rows for some seriously ed up .
But to grasp this is to learn the entire history of theory and then understand why it needed to change. And the change was actually quite gradual.
Look at Jazz theory and although it sort of stems from the tonal functionality of chords, the ii V I motion , alot of it is just a matter of " this was done in a song, listen to the colour " . If you check out Mark Levine's jazz theory book, pretty much the standard resource, you will see all kinds of weird things like, V and resolve anywhere, any chord can go anywhere. This is why it isn't so much a theory but a language of different colours that you internalize and then have control over. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sonic_c
Debussy is my all time favorite even above trance. I get anxiety and his music sooths me lol. How did he ignore theory i just assumed he was a master? |
Several famous composers were not exactly classically "trained", but they were exposed to the art constantly, especially in the Romantic period, and the more talented ones probably picked up a more intuitive understanding of music theory.
And as is typically the case when learning things intuitively, some of the more subtle aspects of the theory were perhaps ignored, twisted or corrupted entirely, although the fundamental elements stayed the same. Sometimes this produces great art, as in the case of many Romantic-era composers... other times, probably most of the time, it produces mediocre art at best that is forgotten within a few years if not months or days.
I'm not trying to put anyone down here, but it's important to realize that we are not Debussy, we are not Mozart, we didn't grow up in the same environments they grew up in and in all likelihood just don't have that 1-in-a-million innate talent they had. That doesn't mean we can't write great music, it just means we have to work a little harder. Thus it's always a good thing to learn the formal theory, even if we only end up using it as a system of loose guidelines that get ignored more than half the time.
Many if not most musicians and composers would say that it's better to break the rules deliberately than it is to not know the rules at all. The former is being clever; the latter is just thrashing around randomly. |
|
|
| SGL |
If you're looking to better your 'melody' composition, then music theory will help pave the way for that. But in general, electronic music is mostly about 'atmosphere'.
You can have the most intense melody, but if you're production is bad, the listener will get turned off. On the other hand, if you're melody is very minimal, but you have a great atmosphere going in your tracks, it will get people to listen regardless.
'Monolake' is a perfect example of an artist, who creates melody through the atmosphere of the sound. Applying effects, automation, etc...that's what gets people to trip on the music.
I don't practice what I just preached, but I've been off making music for about a year and half. All I'm practicing now is sound design and learning to create ambient atmosphere throughout.
It's hard, especially when you're a hobbyist and learn things being an autodidact. But, I guess I'm pretty addicted. |
|
|
| RichieV |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Several famous composers were not exactly classically "trained", but they were exposed to the art constantly, especially in the Romantic period, and the more talented ones probably picked up a more intuitive understanding of music theory.
. |
It is interesting that you mention that because alot of people think theory is really old. Most of it became into existence at the turn of the 20 century, Specifically chord succession which until Riemann in the late 19th century has not really been explored other than the I IV V I relation ship by guys like Rameau(17th century). There is writing but compared it is rather alien and impractical to what we now call functional harmony.
Like you said, i think they had an innate sense as to which chord would go where and have a framework in their mind from constant exposure but most of the greats where not schooled in harmony. The concept of chords is rather controversy because up until a certain point, most understood music as flowing lines ) counterpoint ) and not chords.
I hate calling music theory theory because it isn't a theory. But oh well. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by RichieV
I hate calling music theory theory because it isn't a theory. But oh well. |
Why do you say that? It's not a scientific theory perhaps, in the sense of testable hypotheses, but it's certainly a theory in the conventional and/or colloquial sense. It's a collection of axioms, observations, logic, conclusions and predictions, which when fully understood can lead to various practical applications. Or not.
Sounds like a theory to me. :p |
|
|
| RichieV |
well a theory implies that it says something about the empirical nature of something.
music theory is nothing but a framework for organizing certain note movements for a given genre. A theory implies that it can be tested which is ridiculous for music. I still call it theory because everyone else does but I hardly think it apt to describe what it actually represents. Music theory is a cognitive system that helps organize elements in one's mind.
There actually are nutcase PHD's in music propelled by the writtings of Schenker that actually believe in chord functionality like it is similar to gravity. The notion of chord functionality is silly. They assume that it is something that dictates music but it only represents it.
The fact that we associate V going to I as a natural movement is because for the longest time, that is what happened and our ears got used to it. But why is it that a chord lets say I in C major doesn't have the urge to go to F ? It is technically the same movement but for some reason in this case it doesn't. I could go on but I won't.
It is a great tool but I think theory is a bad term. But lets forget about it because i'm sure we are the only ones on this page. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Ok, instead of a "theory" you can think of it as a "model."
But I'm still going to call it theory. ;) |
|
|
| RichieV |
yes i prefer model!!!
i have no problem with normal people calling it theory. I just had to be around alot of academics at one point that though music theory was actually science. It was a topic for a paper. MUst of read every single book on theory and the history of theory. Probably about 30. |
|
|
| Beyer |
| quote: | | Originally posted by RichieV dI hate calling music theory theory because it isn't a theory. But oh well. |
+1 |
|
|
| RichieV |
| it is funny that the kind of music I like is the stuff that ignores traditional harmony. I suppose once you know it in and out, it gets boring. HAving said that , those that try and do tonal harmony and fail at it, that is more annoying than those that just do what they want. IF that makes any sense. |
|
|
| gr8ape |
well debussy iwas an impressionist, so at that time what he did was "out of the norm"
so like diginut says, unless youre the next debussy, all the artists of the past that defined genres and styles are good inspiration...so to speak |
|
|
|
|
